Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Nice work Sparky. Thanks for participating.





posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Darwin! Darwin! Darwin!!! I'm sick to death of hearing his name bandied about all of the time....

B.A.C., in your OP you mentioned (his book, although you misquoted the actual title) yet on page two(edit), in a response to someone, you said that this thread is not about evolution. Period. (loosely quoted from your actual words.

YES!!! This is about abiogenisis, NOT Darwin!!! Waters seem to be getting muddy....

besides, and last time to mention 'him', but the title of that infamous 'book' is written in the stilted prose of the nineteenth century. the title is NOT about the 'origin' of life, as in abiogenesis, it is about the observations 'he' made in the 'origin' of species changng, and adapting, to naturally occuring surroundings in different environments.

It is about variations WITHIN an already existing population of a species.

Nothing about monkeys/humans, etc, etc, etc....THAT came up during the famous 'Scopes' trial, in Tennesse.

[edit on 3/4/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


B.A.C. As to your response to lasheic, you quoted the entire post, including the YT vids, then said that your thread is not about 'evolution', when the very POINT was one arguing against 'creationism' which apparently some would like to be a replacement for 'abiogenesis' because they just can't wrap their minds around a bigger, more complex explanation.

Oh, not topical, but hard to miss: You simply cannot refer to the 'Theory of gravitation' then in the same sentence say that it defines the LAW of gravity!!! Gravity IS STILL a theory, because it, and how it, whether it is, or is not, related to the other three major forces, strong/week nuclear and electromagnetic, is still under consideration.

Gravity is observable....and so are certain aspects of evolutionary changes, the so-called 'Micro-E'.....but, this is NOT about evolution!!!!

[edit on 3/4/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Darwin! Darwin! Darwin!!! I'm sick to death of hearing his name bandied about all of the time....

B.A.C., in your OP you mentioned (his book, although you misquoted the actual title) yet on page two(edit), in a response to someone, you said that this thread is not about evolution. Period. (loosely quoted from your actual words.

YES!!! This is about abiogenisis, NOT Darwin!!! Waters seem to be getting muddy....

besides, and last time to mention 'him', but the title of that infamous 'book' is written in the stilted prose of the nineteenth century. the title is NOT about the 'origin' of life, as in abiogenesis, it is about the observations 'he' made in the 'origin' of species changng, and adapting, to naturally occuring surroundings in different environments.

It is about variations WITHIN an already existing population of a species.

Nothing about monkeys/humans, etc, etc, etc....THAT came up during the famous 'Scopes' trial, in Tennesse.

[edit on 3/4/0909 by weedwhacker]


Yes I know the proper title is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", most just call it what I called it though.

This thread isn't about evolution, look at the title. The only reason I mentioned evolution is to co - relate how science won't admit they don't have all the facts about common descent (which I consider related to origin of life), which is a part of Darwin's theory.

But you are right, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it LOL. It always does inspire heated debate.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

This thread isn't about evolution. I will respond however.

Electromagnetic Theory explains the many LAWS of electricity.

Gravitational Theory explains the LAW of gravity.

Evolutionary Theory tries to explain itself. It is not fact.

Enough said.

Go here to talk about evolution:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread is about The Origin Of Life.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


Hey there BAC

Here you are implying that for a theory to be valid it has to explain a Law.

This is plain wrong.

Are you using this straw man on purpose or is it that you are not aware that every scientific theory does not have to have to have a corresponding scientific law.

For example:

Germ theory of disease

Atomic Theory

Sociological theory

And, by the way, a question for you:

What are your thoughts on the origins of life?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza

Originally posted by B.A.C.

This thread isn't about evolution. I will respond however.

Electromagnetic Theory explains the many LAWS of electricity.

Gravitational Theory explains the LAW of gravity.

Evolutionary Theory tries to explain itself. It is not fact.

Enough said.

Go here to talk about evolution:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread is about The Origin Of Life.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


Hey there BAC

Here you are implying that for a theory to be valid it has to explain a Law.

This is plain wrong.

Are you using this straw man on purpose or is it that you are not aware that every scientific theory does not have to have to have a corresponding scientific law.

For example:

Germ theory of disease

Atomic Theory

Sociological theory

And, by the way, a question for you:

What are your thoughts on the origins of life?




No, I'm not implying that for a theory to be valid it has to be backed by a law.

I respect the concept of theories.

I'm saying don't present it as fact if there are unknowns, that's all.

Edit: Sorry I missed the part about my view on origin of life. I think we have a creator.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

No, I'm not implying that for a theory to be valid it has to be backed by a law.


You know, it sure looked a lot like you where implying that.


Originally posted by B.A.C.

I respect the concept of theories.

I'm saying don't present it as fact if there are unknowns, that's all.



But most, if not all scientific theories contain unknowns ... rarely do scientists say they know everything about a subject. It is the unknowns that inspire scientists to practice their discipline!

But despite these unknowns, current scientific theories can still be tested, retested and found to hold true under intense scrutiny and these theories can be presented as fact. Its as simple as that.

Of course, when evidence is presented that conclusively falsify a scientific theory, it is discarded, like the phlogiston theory.

Of course we all know that falsifying a theory doesn't mean just pointing out the holes in a theory.

It means presenting testable evidence that clearly contradicts said theory.


Originally posted by B.A.C.

Edit: Sorry I missed the part about my view on origin of life. I think we have a creator.



Can I ask which creator it is you believe in?

[edit on 4/3/09 by Horza]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   


genetics.mgh.harvard.edu...









Note: Abiogenesis is not a "theory" in the same terms as Evolution. It's more a "Theory" in the same way that String Theory is. There's multiple complimentary and competing fields of study within Abiogenesis - such as RNA World/Iron-Sulfur World/Panspermia/Etc. I tend to throw my hat into RNA world hypothesis via hydrothermal vents.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza

Originally posted by B.A.C.

No, I'm not implying that for a theory to be valid it has to be backed by a law.


You know, it sure looked a lot like you where implying that.


Originally posted by B.A.C.

I respect the concept of theories.

I'm saying don't present it as fact if there are unknowns, that's all.



But most, if not all scientific theories contain unknowns ... rarely do scientists say they know everything about a subject. It is the unknowns that inspire scientists to practice their discipline!

But despite these unknowns, current scientific theories can still be tested, retested and found to hold true under intense scrutiny and these theories can be presented as fact. Its as simple as that.

Of course, when evidence is presented that conclusively falsify a scientific theory, it is discarded, like the phlogiston theory.

Of course we all know that falsifying a theory doesn't mean just pointing out the holes in a theory.

It means presenting testable evidence that clearly contradicts said theory.


Originally posted by B.A.C.

Edit: Sorry I missed the part about my view on origin of life. I think we have a creator.



Can I ask which creator it is you believe in?

[edit on 4/3/09 by Horza]


His name is Gerald.

Seriously? I call him God, but what does it matter what name I think he has?

[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Thanks for the vids! I'll have to check them out tomorrow when I have time.

Cheers.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Can I ask which creator it is you believe in?

[edit on 4/3/09 by Horza]

His name is Gerald.

Seriously? I call him God, but what does it matter what name I think he has?

[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


It doesn't really .... just curious ... I should have just asked you which religion you follow ... I assume it's Christianity ... are you a Young Earth Creationist or an Intelligent Design proponent? I hope you don't ask me asking.

Is it possible that you disagree with the current theories of abiogenesis and evolution because you it contradicts your interpretation of the Christian faith and not because you have found testable evidence that contradicts these two theories?




[edit on 4/3/09 by Horza]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
I'm saying don't present it as fact if there are unknowns, that's all.


So, according to B.A.C., if there are unknowns, then it is NOT a fact.

There are unknowns about gravity, therefore gravity is not a fact (according to B.A.C.)

There are unknowns about stars, therefore stars are not a fact (according to B.A.C.)

There are unknowns about viruses, therefore viruses are not a fact (according to B.A.C.)


B.A.C.'s argument is obviously nonsense.


There are unknowns about almost everything.
So what?
That doesn't make what we DO know untrue.
Which is what B.A.C. is claiming.


Kapyong



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yes I know the proper title is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", most just call it what I called it though.


Nope.
Most persons use the correct short form "Origin of Species", or "The Origin of Species".

The odd and incorrect form "Origin of The Species" is peculiar to creationist circles - it slightly distorts the meaning, falsely making it sound like it covers abiogenesis.


Kapyong



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yes I know the proper title is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", most just call it what I called it though.


Nope.
Most persons use the correct short form "Origin of Species", or "The Origin of Species".

The odd and incorrect form "Origin of The Species" is peculiar to creationist circles - it slightly distorts the meaning, falsely making it sound like it covers abiogenesis.


Kapyong


How did that simple mistake distort the meaning, explain yourself?

Wrong. Would you like me to show you posts from "evolutionists" that have called it the same as I have?

Quit making it about creationism, it sounds desperate complaining about a single word. ie; "the"

Yes I made a mistake, did the full title satisfy you?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
I'm saying don't present it as fact if there are unknowns, that's all.


So, according to B.A.C., if there are unknowns, then it is NOT a fact.

There are unknowns about gravity, therefore gravity is not a fact (according to B.A.C.)

There are unknowns about stars, therefore stars are not a fact (according to B.A.C.)

There are unknowns about viruses, therefore viruses are not a fact (according to B.A.C.)


B.A.C.'s argument is obviously nonsense.


There are unknowns about almost everything.
So what?
That doesn't make what we DO know untrue.
Which is what B.A.C. is claiming.


Kapyong

This thread isn't about evolution. Go here www.abovetopsecret.com... to discuss that.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Can I ask which creator it is you believe in?

[edit on 4/3/09 by Horza]

His name is Gerald.

Seriously? I call him God, but what does it matter what name I think he has?

[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


It doesn't really .... just curious ... I should have just asked you which religion you follow ... I assume it's Christianity ... are you a Young Earth Creationist or an Intelligent Design proponent? I hope you don't ask me asking.

Is it possible that you disagree with the current theories of abiogenesis and evolution because you it contradicts your interpretation of the Christian faith and not because you have found testable evidence that contradicts these two theories?




[edit on 4/3/09 by Horza]


This thread is about Abiogenesis, not evolution, go here www.abovetopsecret.com... to discuss evolution.

I don't agree with Abiogenesis because I can't picture molecules self replicating without any help.

Why does everyone have to use religion as an argument? Did I bring religion into it? What does religion have to do with questioning a theory?

Actually I DO mind you asking, because you are angling to use that as an argument. Which makes no sense. 55% of scientists in North America are Christian. The majority. Is their work lacking because of their belief?

On topic please.



[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Very nice vids mate ... thanks for posting!



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

This thread is about Abiogenesis, not evolution, go here



But you said they where the same thing?? I only mentioned it because you did


Originally posted by B.A.C.

Isn't molecules "evolving" into life a type of evolution? What's the difference between this and anything else evolving?


And I distinctly talked about abiogenesis in my post.


Originally posted by B.A.C.

Why does everyone have to use religion as an argument? Did I bring religion into it? What does religion have to do with questioning a theory?

On topic please.


This is the Conspiracies in Religions forum ... so naturally religion is gonna come up.

I assumed that you where a Creationist, IDer wanting to have a go at Abiogenesis

If you wanted to have a purely empirical discussion then maybe you should have posted in the Science and Technology forum.

Shall we have the mods move it and then we can continue in an evidence and fact based manner?


[edit on 4/3/09 by Horza]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza

Originally posted by B.A.C.

This thread is about Abiogenesis, not evolution, go here



But you said they where the same thing?? I only mentioned it because you did


Originally posted by B.A.C.

Isn't molecules "evolving" into life a type of evolution? What's the difference between this and anything else evolving?


And I distinctly talked about abiogenesis in my post.


Originally posted by B.A.C.

Why does everyone have to use religion as an argument? Did I bring religion into it? What does religion have to do with questioning a theory?

On topic please.


This is the Conspiracies in Religions forum ... so naturally religion is gonna come up.

I assumed that you where a Creationist, IDer wanting to have a go at Abiogenesis

If you wanted to have a purely empirical discussion then maybe you should have posted in the Science and Technology forum.

Shall we have the mods move it and then we can continue in an evidence and fact base manner?


I am a Creationist. Who disagrees with the science involved, or lack of science involved with Abiogenesis.

Why beat around the bush? First you ask if I believe in a creator, then you ask what I call my creator (like that matters), I guess you were trying to distinguish if I believe in Allah or God, who knows, then you imply that my beliefs are somehow interfering with my judgement.

Should have just come right out and asked the BIG question. No need though, because I'll answer it now.

I think that certain scientist's and peer review journal's purposely reject any research that goes against convention. Especially if the results would lead to ANY question of there being a God.

Which is unfortunate. Truth should always come first.

Here's a list of Christian Scientists, not just Scientists, but among the top 100 of all time:

Roger Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Johannes Baptista van Helmont
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Anton van Leeuwenhoek
Carolus Linnaeus
Leonhard Euler
John Dalton
Michael Faraday
John Frederick William Herschel
Matthew Fontaine Maury
James Prescott Joule
Gregor Mendel
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin
James Clerk Maxwell
George Washington Carver
Arthur Stanley Eddington

Did they let their belief interfere with their research? Hardly.


[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I am a Creationist. Who disagrees with the science involved, or lack of science involved with Abiogenesis.

Why beat around the bush?


BAC ... cmon mate ... you were beating around the bush.

All the "why does religion have to come into it" and "his name is Gerald" and "this is not about evolution" stuff

Why didn't you just come out and say that you where a Creationists who thought that science is wrong when it comes to origins and species?

We all knew it, and gave you plenty of chances to be straight, but you became all righteous and accused us of going off topic when, in fact, we were right on topic.

But at least, now, we know where you stand on this topic.

So ... let's continue ...


Originally posted by B.A.C.

I think that certain scientist's and peer review journal's purposely reject any research that goes against convention. Especially if the results would lead to ANY question of there being a God.

Which is unfortunate.


I disagree.

I think that all scientists would love to see indisputable evidence of there being a god. That would be the most profound scientific discovery of all time and no scientists would disagree with that.

I think what you are confusing here is the rejection of papers that have no actual testable evidence or testable theories and are based in religious dogma that agree with or are compatible with your faith.

The reality is that Creation science has no testable evidence in any field of science that supports the idea that all life forms where made spontaneously by a god as they appear today.


Originally posted by B.A.C.

Here's a list of Christian Scientists, not just Scientists, but among the top 100 of all time:
...

Did they let their religion interfere with their research? Hardly.


They didn't ... and they where very good scientists.

Did you know that about 40% of all scientists today believe in a faith based religion of some kind?

You should watch this:



However these scientists below did let their religion interfere with their research ... and they make very poor scientists in the fields of evolution and abiogenesis:

Michael J Behe
David Berlinski
Paul Chien
William A Dembski
David DeWolf
Guillermo Gonzalez
Michael Newton Keas
Jay W Richards
Jonathan Wells
Benjamin Wiker
Jonathan Witt

Source

What do you think of this statement of faith?


By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join